Two blog posts I’ve read in the last day struck me like the ghost of christmas yet to come, and arose in me an urge to quit blogging, quit reading blogs, and quit reading the daily news. The first is an admonition from Robin Hanson against consumption of novel information:
Until you reach the state of the art, and are ready to be at the very forefront of advancing human knowledge, most of what you should read to get to that forefront isn’t today’s news, or even today’s blogger musings. Read classic books and articles, textbooks, review articles. Then maybe read focused publications (including perhaps some blog posts) on your chosen focus topic(s).
The second I came across while searching for an old post at Greg Mankiw’s blog. It is his advice for new junior faculty, which I am not, but it never the less resonated with me:
Avoid activities that will distract you from research. Whatever you do, do not start a blog. That will only establish your lack of seriousness as a scholar.
Perhaps I am on the verge of being persuaded by these appeals because, unlike Katja Grace, I am not entirely comfortable with my level of thinking vs reading. Katja writes:
The extreme of thinking with no intellectual input gets you as far as a thoughtful caveman. The other extreme is zero improvement on what exists around you. I’m not sure what the optimal compromise is, and it would depend on the topic, but I suspect I am biased in favor of thinking….[M]ore people seem toward the reading end of your spectrum and like a lot of detailed knowledge, keeping up with everything that happens without trying to add much to it… I mostly feel like I don’t read enough personally because reading seems so slow compared to thinking, but I suppose if I really cared I would have learned to speed read by now.
The thinking that blogging involves thinking is usually relatively short term focused, and doesn’t require you to stay with an idea or topic as long as reading a great book does, nor does it usually draw you as deeply in. Blogging also allows you to think about whatever piques your interest in the moment, and think about whatever your brain feels like thinking about. I don’t think this is a good way to learn about the world, because this draws you to ideas and topics that have an immediate novelty or are obviously interesting. In contrast, when you’re reading you’ve made a several hundred page commitment to focusing on a topic, and can’t just switch topics when things get a little dry or lose their novelty.
Blogging is like a conversation, you’re covering a lot of ground, thinking, and learning, which seems good. But topics change quickly and the focus tends to be on being things that are obviously interesting and can be communicated relatively quickly and easily. Some of the most important and ultimately interesting ideas come slowly and take a lot of heavy lifting and hard work. I am worried this conversation is too distracting for my own good, and is crowding out the heavy lifting.
I blame Yglesias and Cowen.
3 comments
Comments feed for this article
Wednesday ~ June 30th, 2010 at 9:26 am
jazzbumpa
I’m not sure how far up in your cheek you’re placing your tongue here.
But every one of these objections to blogging is crankiness expressed as false choice. Crowding out the heavy lifting implies an opportunity cost to blogging. And, while it’s true that while doing one thing you usually can’t be doing another, it’s also true that you can’t do all heavy lifting all the time.
While all growth takes place at the margins, you can’t spend all you energy growing. You also need both space and time to internalize, consolidate and assimilate, just like plants needing the dark cycle.
And the activities can be complimentary. While digesting War And Peace or The Theory Of Moral Sentiments you could be commenting on it on your blog, a chapter at a time. This would be a very assimilative type of activity.
And there is nothing inherently time wasting about thinking hard (or even frivolously) about a variety of quick-changing topics.
And blogging offers an opportunity to try out new, perhaps strange ideas – even flights of fancy – that might lead to a startling new insight, or a valuably different slant on a very old idea.
Plus, of course, you get the conversation.
Cheers!
JzB
Thursday ~ July 1st, 2010 at 8:05 am
Adam Ozimek
There is a very real opportunity cost of time for me in blogging, there are always various degrees of heavy and slightly heavy lifting it crowds out. Don’t forget we aren’t all retirees.
I appreciate the point about internalizing, assimilating, and consolidating, and that is a value to blogging. Perhaps I need to focus on using blogging more like that. That would make for more boring reading for you and other readers, but I suppose that’s better than nothing.
And the conversation is of course valuable.
Wednesday ~ June 30th, 2010 at 10:10 am
Rebecca Burlingame
Again I would add, don’t worry. Blogging may touch on important material more quickly and then switch subject, but it can focuse your mind on something that you might not have as strong a personal link with, in a textbook or classical work. While I always feel I should read more from the direct and most often quoted sources, the fact remains that their ideas constantly trickle down not just in other books, but in the perceptions that we hold. For instance, I want to read Hayek, and will when I can, but 55 years of life experience has already allowed me to arrive at some of his conclusions. In a recently philosophy class, I told my teacher that even though I’ve not read William James directly, I’ve encountered his thought in countless books over the years.
It would probably help to keep up your reading, for the trees do not get too distracting when you are looking at the whole forest. But please don’t quit blogging, the value really is there.